Bank of America, N.A. v. Diamond Point Homeowners Association et al

Filing 96

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the STAY in this action is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulations or motions, dispositive motions are due within forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/22/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:16-cv-00405-KJD-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
DESERT SHORES COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

I. Background and Analysis

16

This case emerges from the non-judicial foreclosure sale by Defendant Diamond Point

17

Homeowners Association on or about July 27, 2012 of the property located at 1204 E. Hammer

18

Lane, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89081 (“the Property”). This case shares a similar fact pattern

19

with many cases currently pending before this Court, all having to do with HOA foreclosure

20

sales. One of the issues before the Court centers in whole or in part around the question of what

21

notice of default the foreclosing party was required to provide Plaintiff prior to its foreclosure

22

sale on the Property. After the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v.

23

U.S. Bank, the Ninth Circuit decided Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832

24

F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding NRS 115.3116(2)’s statutory notice scheme was

25

facially unconstitutional).

26

On April 21, 2017, in Bank of New York Mellon v. Star Hills Homeowners Ass’n, this

27

Court certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court: “Whether NRS §

28

116.31168(1)’s incorporation of NRS § 107.090 requires homeowners associations to provide

1

notices of default to banks even when a bank does not request notice?” Bank of New York

2

Mellon v. Star Hill Homeowners Ass’n, 2017 WL 1439671, at *5 (D. Nev. April 21, 2017).

3

In granting certification, the Court reasoned the following: In Bourne Valley, the Ninth

4

Circuit definitively answered the question that the statute’s “opt-in” framework was

5

unconstitutional. Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th

6

Cir. 2016). However, that left the Court with the unresolved question of what notice must be

7

provided. “It is solely within the province of the state courts to authoritatively construe state

8

legislation.” Cal. Teachers Ass’n v. State Bd. of Educ., 271 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). As

9

such, state law questions of first impression like this one should be resolved by the state’s

10
11

highest court. See Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U.S. 232, 237 (1944).
On August 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified question. See

12

SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 422 P.3d 1248 (Nev. 2018). Further, it has

13

since issued two new opinions that bear on the issues in this action. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

14

v. Tim Radecki, 2018 WL 4402403 (Nev. September 13, 2018); Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR

15

Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 2018 WL 4403296 (Nev. September 13, 2018) (tender of the superpriority

16

amount prior to foreclosure results in buyer taking property subject to deed of trust).

17

Also, since the action was stayed, opinions in several cases have directly addressed the

18

Federal Foreclosure Bar issues in this action. See Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923 (9th Cir.

19

2017); Elmer v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 707 Fed. Appx. 426 (9th Cir. 2017); Nationstar Mortg.,

20

LLC v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 396 P.3d 754 (Nev. 2017).

21

A. Stay of the Case

22

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote the

23

efficient use of judicial resources. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S., 248, 254-55 (1936);

24

Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 200). A

25

stay is no longer necessary in this action where the certified question has already been decided.

26

B. Briefing Schedule

27

The parties may either file a stipulation or move the Court for a modified discovery plan

28

and scheduling order as necessary. If the parties fail to do so, dispositive motions are due no later

-2-

1

than forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order. Any future dispositive motions must

2

address the most recent case law applicable to the issues in this action.

3

II. Conclusion

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the STAY in this action is LIFTED;

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulations, motions to modify the discovery plan and

6

scheduling order, or in the absence of such stipulations or motions, dispositive motions are due

7

within forty-five (45) days after the entry of this order.

8

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2018.

9
10
11

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-